Talk:1933 Outer Banks hurricane

1933 Outer Banks hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

1933 Outer Banks hurricane is part of the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
December 16, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[tropical cyclone scales#Atlantic Ocean|major hurricane]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Todo/Merge?

First, fix the spelling and grammar errors so it's at least readable. Second, is there much of a point for this article? There's only a little impact, which could easily be put into the season article. The preparations drags on too much and could easily be said in one or two sentences. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, this is a notable hurricane. Storm05 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And second theres nothing wrong with the peparations section. Storm05 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with what I said? The article needs to have its grammar/spelling errors fixed, and it wasn't terribly notable. Around 30 deaths isn't particularly notable, and given the lack of information there is little need for such an article. Also, the pR!!!eparations section, which in case you didn't notice was misspelled in the article, drags on too much. Why can't you just say that on September X, the National Weather Bureau issued a hurricane warning from X to X in response to the approaching hurricane? Hurricanehink (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh around 30 deaths is notable and we all agreed that if a storm did 25+ deaths, 100+ million dollars in damage or had any (and I mean any) info (hence the more anything that you keep bringing up talk pages) and plus we need more users in this discussion because you and me talking back and forth is not going to get us nowhere. Storm05 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its impossible to judge notability based on the information in this article really. The 25 deaths/100 million were approximate numbers anyway, if both are lower than that a fast-merge is likely. With both this storm and the other '33 article you have just written the notability situation is harder to judge because the seasonal article is in an awful state. Also can you please run your work through a spell checker in future? I can see numerous spelling and grammatical errors: Atlantic not atlantic, Chesapeake not Chesapeke, Patomac not Patomic, Preparations not Peparations, Massachusetts not Massachuestess. "13th Atlantic storm, sixth hurricane and 4th major hurricane" is bad. Either it should read "13th, 6th, 4th" or "thirteenth, sixth, fourth". "Flooding was also severe as water up 4 feet covered streets" is bad grammar, that doesn't actually mean anything - did you mean "…as water up to 4 feet deep covered…"? If you don't make spelling and grammar mistakes, people will be much more favorably inclined to retaining your work.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just messed up on your judgement becaue Patomic and Chesapeke are incorrect, its Potomic and Chesapeake (type it in google) Storm05 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was saying "you made a mistake by writing Chesapeke not Chesapeake", I rephrased it to make it more clear. And it is PotomAc…--Nilfanion (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copy edit, corrected my mistakes and spelling errors. Im still stand on my judgement that This is a notable hurricane because of the death toll and records it set. Again see the 2005 storms. Storm05 13:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still havent got peparations (its pReparations) sorted though and the grammatical errors I pointed out haven't been touched. A google for Peparations on Wikipedia generates 14 hits, all articles you created. Preparations gets ~60 thousand hits.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Storm05 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that grammar error. Storm05 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However theres nothing wrong with the intro because it follows the basics of all the other hurricane articles. Storm05 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this article is at the same length as the Tropical Storm Lee (2005) article. Storm05 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee is much better written than this. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Added more info. Storm05 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge imo. As has been laid out above, this storm isn't horribly well-remembered (that's my basis for notability), and it needs to be much-improved to even meet basic encyclopedia standards. Chacor 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The name 1933 September Hurricane for this storm is inappropriate; that does not uniquely define this one.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that was the storm was known as. Storm05 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats original research - citation?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its says so in the links in the refrences. Storm05 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In additon, please discuss this first in the project page before you do anything otherwise it is condsidered disrpution. Storm05 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Don't make up policy. – Ch acor 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it its, because he didnt tell me about the article names in the project or talk pages nor did he tell me anything about the article names earlier. Storm05 16:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:POINT. It's not disruption. Accusing him of violating Wiki policy isn't civil. – Ch acor 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing anyone im just saying that he should discuss this first before making any changes or edits. Storm05 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dispute tags are perfectly acceptable. Refusing to let him do so stinks of WP:OWN. You don't need to discuss to add dispute tags; usually you add the dispute tag before discussing. – Ch acor 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did. I added the disputed template and added reasoning here.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about 1933 North Carolina hurricane? Its impact is mostly in NC, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have one. To be a little more specific and creative, here's mine: 1933 Outer Banks hurricane. HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. That's where most of the damage occurred, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also one of the few areas without its name in an article. If what i said is confusing i am saying that the Outer Banks area is not in the title of a Pre-1950 article.HurricaneCraze32 aka Mitchazenia 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I renamed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit

I have only made one edit to this article and otherwise it reads fine. I have therefore removed the copy-edit tag. JenLouise 05:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1933 Outer Banks hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No link to the season article in the lede?
- Added. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It moved generally to the north-northwest and strengthened quickly to its peak winds on September 12, estimated at 140 mph (220 km/h)." - I think it would be good to avoid using "it/its" more than once in a sentence.
- Good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It began weakening as it approached the southeastern United States," - Ditto
- The Pokémon? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurricane force winds extended into southeastern Virginia, causing two deaths." - Did the winds caused the deaths?
- Hmm, not sure. Reworded. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For over two days, the hurricane remained near peak intensity while tracking to the northwest" - I don't think this is a good way to start a new paragraph
- Why not? The previous paragraph stated peak winds, and the next paragraph is just the next stage in its life. It's a story. A fairy tale of a hurricane gone astray. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"around which time a pressure of 957 mbar (28.3 inHg) was recorded. The eye also passed over Diamond Shoals, where a pressure of 952 mbar (28.1 inHg) was recorded." - Is it necessary to mention both pressure readings?
- It is, because that's how they determined that the storm did not make landfall. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The outer rainbands of the hurricane dropped moderate to heavy rainfall," - Wikilink to rainband
- Easy enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In southeastern Virginia, winds reached 79 mph (128 km/h)." - According to this, the strongest winds were 88 mph at Norfolk.
- But HURDAT suggests that winds weren't as strong as originally estimated estimated, and that sustained winds only reached 79 mph. Since it's unclear whether 88 mph was a gust, or an incorrect sustained wind report, I didn't add it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In Provincetown, Massachusetts, the storm dropped 12.3 in (310 mm) of rainfall as the storm passed the region." - Fix this to avoid saying "the storm" twice.
- Did. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is reference #11 a link to a report on Hurricane Carol?
- Gah, that's what I get for copying refs from another article. Fixed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am gonna pass this article now.--12george1 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]